Blind review

[anjelica]

Thank you, Kim Manturuk, for being transparent and bringing this issue to light.
I always considered double-blind and peer-review research to be the gold standard. It didn’t occur to me to investigate those doing the studies. Double-blind research, unfortunately, can mask both unintended and intended biases. This reminds me of the 1993 NIH inclusion policy that mandates women and minorities be included in NIH-funded research. To think this wasn’t a requirement until 30 years ago highlights how inclusion is pursued and not guaranteed. Furthermore, this is only an NIH requirement and doesn’t apply to all evidence-based research. I wonder who else is being overlooked. The proposal to have a statement excluding discriminatory schools presented a moral dilemma for me. Although I agree with the intent, I don’t want exclusionary practices to gain a foothold. This could easily backfire and exclude more than the intended parties. Perhaps a statement of appropriate conduct, respect, and inclusion would be more impactful.
As a DNP student, I will one day participate in the peer review process. This is a great reminder to review the gathered data and determine the researcher’s underlying agendas. The proposal to have a separate, unblinded review of the study was intriguing. This could provide more accountability for researchers and find other unidentified biases in their studies.

[Author]

Posts